Identify the appellant and forum first
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST dated 26 June 2024 regulates specified Central Tax departmental appeals, applications and Supreme Court proceedings under CGST sections 120 and 168. It sets limits below which proceedings should not be filed, subject to exclusions: GSTAT ₹20 lakh, High Court ₹1 crore and Supreme Court ₹2 crore. It does not cap a taxpayer’s appeal entitlement or automatically bind every state tax administration. Checked on 5 November 2026. Keep the applicable instruction with the actual departmental review decision.
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120
Count disputed tax rather than the gross demand
Paragraph 3(i) uses aggregate disputed tax, including CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, where tax is disputed with or without penalty or interest. Do not add interest and penalty to push a tax dispute across the limit. Equally, do not count only CGST and ignore other disputed tax components. Identify the part of the order proposed to be challenged rather than copying the entire historical demand even where some components are accepted.
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120
Apply the special non-tax and refund rules
For interest-only, penalty-only and late-fee-only disputes, use the respective amount. Paragraph 3(v) aggregates disputed interest, penalty and/or late fee where no tax is disputed. Paragraph 3(vi) uses the erroneous refund in dispute, including the specified tax components. Under paragraph 3(viii), a composite order disposing of several appeals or notices is tested using the relevant combined amount, not artificially divided into separate below-limit cases. Preserve a component-by-component bridge to the proposed grounds.
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120
Screen exclusions before concluding non-filing
Paragraph 4 covers statutory provisions held unconstitutional, rules/regulations held beyond their parent Act, and specified government/Board instruments held beyond the relevant Act or Rules. It also covers valuation, classification, refunds, place of supply and other issues recurring in nature and/or involving interpretation. Strictures, adverse comments or costs against government, the department or its officers form another exclusion. The Board can also identify cases requiring contest in the interest of justice or revenue. These require a merits decision irrespective of amount.
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120
Equality and merits are separate questions
The restriction concerns amounts below the limit. Equality does not meet that description. Nevertheless, paragraph 5 says an appeal should not be filed merely because the amount exceeds the limit; assess merits independently. The circular neither creates substantive grounds nor enlarges a statutory filing period. A taxpayer evaluating litigation exposure should therefore separate the arithmetic, paragraph 4 screening, merits, jurisdiction and procedural timing instead of treating a small amount as an absolute immunity.
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120
Record why the department did not appeal
Section 120 and paragraphs 6–6.3 preserve the distinction between non-filing because of the limit and acceptance of a legal position. The reviewing authority is directed to record non-filing on monetary-limit grounds where the decision remains unacceptable. Another case involving the same issue can still be contested. Before relying on an unappealed order as departmental acceptance, establish its actual review basis. The examples assume Central Tax proceedings and no paragraph 4 exclusion unless expressly stated.
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts are fictional. Calculations illustrate the stated assumptions, not a predetermined legal outcome.
Illustrative example 1: Ancillary demand does not lift tax
Proposed GSTAT appeal: disputed CGST ₹8 lakh and SGST ₹8 lakh, penalty ₹4 lakh and interest ₹3 lakh. Relevant tax is ₹16 lakh, below ₹20 lakh; gross demand ₹23 lakh is not the paragraph 3(i) comparator. Exclusions still need screening.
Illustrative example 2: Exact boundary
Disputed IGST is exactly ₹20 lakh. It is equal to, not below, the GSTAT limit. Amount alone does not trigger the below-limit restriction; neither does it mandate an appeal.
Illustrative example 3: Composite disposal
A composite order disposes of three demands with disputed tax ₹7 lakh, ₹6 lakh and ₹9 lakh. Relevant combined amount ₹22 lakh exceeds the GSTAT limit by ₹2 lakh. Separate notice-by-notice comparisons would be wrong.
Illustrative example 4: No disputed tax
Only interest ₹9 lakh, penalty ₹8 lakh and late fee ₹4 lakh are disputed. Aggregate ₹21 lakh is used under paragraph 3(v), above the GSTAT limit by ₹1 lakh. Tax-only arithmetic cannot turn this into a zero-value dispute.
Illustrative example 5: Refund and interpretation exclusion
A proposed High Court challenge concerns erroneous refund of CGST ₹48 lakh and SGST ₹48 lakh: total ₹96 lakh is below ₹1 crore. Assume recurring statutory interpretation is involved. Paragraph 4(iv) still requires a merits decision irrespective of amount.
Illustrative example 6: Above the Supreme Court limit
Disputed tax components ₹1.25 crore and ₹0.80 crore total ₹2.05 crore, exceeding ₹2 crore by ₹5 lakh. Paragraph 5 still requires assessment of merits; threshold crossing is not an instruction to appeal.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify the decision-maker | Confirm this is a Central Tax departmental review. |
| 2 | Select the forum | Record the relevant appellate forum and limit. |
| 3 | Read the proposed grounds | Identify precisely what remains disputed. |
| 4 | Classify the dispute | Separate tax, non-tax-only and erroneous-refund cases. |
| 5 | Aggregate applicable components | Reconcile included tax or ancillary amounts. |
| 6 | Check composite orders | Combine relevant multiple disposals. |
| 7 | Compare strictly | Distinguish below, equal and above. |
| 8 | Screen every exclusion | Record recurring interpretation, adverse findings and other paragraph 4 circumstances. |
| 9 | Assess merits and timing | Preserve grounds and procedural compliance independently. |
| 10 | Record the non-filing reason | Separate monetary restraint from acceptance on merits. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Which circular governs these figures?
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST dated 26 June 2024.
2. Who is directly addressed?
Central Tax officers making the specified departmental appeal decisions.
3. What is the GSTAT limit?
₹20 lakh, subject to amount rules and exclusions.
4. What is the High Court limit?
₹1 crore under the cited circular.
5. What is the Supreme Court limit?
₹2 crore for the specified proceedings.
6. Does equality mean below the limit?
No. They are different comparisons.
7. Is penalty added to disputed tax here?
Not under paragraph 3(i)’s tax-dispute test.
8. Is only CGST counted?
No. Include the specified other disputed tax components.
9. How is an interest-only dispute measured?
Use disputed interest under paragraph 3(ii).
10. What if several non-tax components are disputed?
Aggregate relevant interest, penalty and late fee where no tax is disputed.
11. How is erroneous refund measured?
Use the refund in dispute including applicable specified tax components.
12. Can a composite order be split for convenience?
No. Apply the paragraph 3(viii) combined-amount rule.
13. Are all small refund disputes protected?
No. Screen the recurring/interpretation and other exclusions.
14. Does a larger amount compel an appeal?
No. Paragraph 5 requires a merits decision.
15. Does the circular block a taxpayer’s small appeal?
No. It regulates the stated departmental proceedings.
16. Does non-filing prove legal acceptance?
Not when based solely on the monetary limit; section 120 preserves the distinction.
Official sources
CBIC Circular 207/1/2024-GST: paragraphs 2–6.3 and section 120